Suppression of the Evidence and Lee Harvey Oswald

Note: Classes have started so my posts will get a but more infrequent.

The fallacy of "suppressing the evidence" is about as straightforward as its name suggests. The conspiracist leaves out the information that would easily disprove what they are advocating. This is similar to cherry picking wherein the individual only picks information that supports their case. The two are related, and in some cases it would be very difficult to see the difference. Like in our past discussions, context is key. Quote mining is an example of cherry picking. I can find, in the voluminous writings of Thomas Jefferson, lines that would seem to support a stark religiosity as long. However, I'm not suppressing the evidence until I begin hiding the relevant details.

There is a fine line to walk though, a person is not suppressing the evidence if they fail to address every possible objection to their theory. What matters is when they are ignoring or hiding facts that are obviously in contradiction. For example in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks French author Theirry Meyssan published "Le Pentagate" which was arguably the first to push the "missile theory" of the Pentagon attack (quickly: that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11 rather it was a cruise missile) he used pictures of the Pentagon pointing out that there was no airplane in it. While he might not have had access to pictures which later became widely available is suppressing of the evidence. Why? Because he's purposely (or possibly accidentally) leaving out the important fact that the plane would have entered the building through the hole that it created upon impact. He's making a secondary appeal to common sense when he explains that there were no wing shaped holes in the building, as if the real world operates on cartoon physics.

The best example of evidence suppression involves the JFK assassination conspiracy and Oliver Stone's excellent 1991 movie JFK. Seriously, it's a great movie with great performances, and one of the best uses of kinetic editing. You just have to keep in mind that it's fiction based on real events, though Stone himself might think it to be a quasi-documentary.

Early in the film Senator Russell (Walter Matthau) and Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) are on an airplane discussing how the society went off the rails after Kennedy's death. Russell expresses doubt about the official story and how Oswald couldn't have made the shots. He tells Garrison,

"Sure, three experts and not one of them could do it! They're telling us Oswald got off three shots with world-class precision from a manual bolt action rifle in less than six seconds -- and accordin' to his Marine buddies he got Maggie's drawers -- he wasn't any good. Average man would be lucky to get two shots off, and I tell ya the first shot would always be the best. Here, the third shot's perfect. Don't make sense. And then they got that crazy bullet zigzagging all over the place so it hits Kennedy and Connally seven times. One "pristine" bullet? That dog don't hunt."

I could easily do a blog that would go through each one of the claims that Garrison via Stone make in this movie, and this one paragraph is a good example of how much debunking there is to do in the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. To be clear, as a good skeptic, we must admit that it is possible that there was a conspiracy, but there's no evidence for it. Every claim made by the conspiracists are explained without having to break Occam's razor. 

The claim I want to address here is that the FBI's marksmen couldn't recreate the shot. This is mysterious to me as noted magician, skeptic, atheist, and libertarian Penn Jillette [I tried to link a video but the one I had was unavailable] claimed that he was able to do it in the time Oswald had. I can't judge the claim that is being made in the movie about the FBI experts but I can judge the claim about Oswald himself. 

The movie, and many of the JFK conspiracy theorists rest their claim on the idea that Oswald was a terrible Marine. Nothing supports that narrative. Oswald rifle acumen was enough to earn him the rank of sharpshooter, which is the second highest (expert being the highest). I've read through the test and it's pretty rigorous. You have to take 15 shots at 200m (5 slow, 10 fast), 15 shots at 300m (5 slow, 10 fast), and finally 10 shots at 500m (10 slow). Oswald, as I've mentioned earlier, qualified in the second highest category. A subsequent test, he dropped 21 points (from 212) qualifying as a marksman. 

He was no expert, but saying that he was no good is not a claim that can be made. Russel's claim in the movie that others said he had "Maggie's drawers" comes from the Warren Commission and from USMC shooters that were classified as experts. The comparison here doesn't make sense. Sure he might have dropped in classification, but I've shot rifles. I'm not great, I wouldn't even say I'm good, but I'm proficient and like anything else some days you are just "off." Now again, I'm not an expert and I'm not saying that Oswald was earlier. I am saying that he was a Marine trained to use a rifle and had a qualification that put him beyond the average person's ability. This evidence is purposely left out of the movie and most claims regarding the conspiracy and it's an important detail. 

The entire need for a second shooter rests on the impossibility of Oswald making the two shots he did from the book depository. If it's shown that he cannot do it, we put a shooter at the grassy knoll to compensate for it. If he can then it's unnecessary and we're left with the lone gunman. The suppression of this evidence (as well as Oswald's attempt to kill General Edwin Walker which goes to show that he was trying to kill someone) leaves out an important factor in the judging of the conspiracy, which is why it is suppressed to begin with.